On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 10:27:25AM -0500, Christopher Covington wrote: > On 12/09/2016 07:15 AM, Andrew Jones wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:41:06AM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 08/12/16 17:50, Andrew Jones wrote: > >>> Allow a thread to wait some specified amount of time. Can > >>> specify in cycles, usecs, and msecs. > > >>> +++ b/lib/arm/asm/delay.h > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ > >>> +#ifndef _ASMARM_DELAY_H_ > >>> +#define _ASMARM_DELAY_H_ > >>> +/* > >>> + * Copyright (C) 2016, Red Hat Inc, Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> + * > >>> + * This work is licensed under the terms of the GNU LGPL, version 2. > >>> + */ > >>> +#include <libcflat.h> > >>> + > >>> +extern void delay(u64 cycles); > >> > >> Nit: Shouldn't this parameter be called "ticks"? Cycles might be a bit > >> misleading, especially since this prototype is the only documentation on > >> this. You might just want to fix this when applying the patches. > > > > Right or wrong the kernel uses 'cycles' for this function, named > > __timer_delay for arm and __delay for arm64. I guess I prefer > > consistency here. > > I too expect timers to tick and CPUs to cycle. The benefit of > parameter-name-precise consistency with the Linux source is not > obvious to me. > I just didn't have a strong enough opinion on it to change it. It appears I'm in a minority though. As this is in master already, patches welcome :) Thanks, drew -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
